In court, Mirror journalist Jane Kerr was questioned about commissioning South Africa-based private investigator Mike Behr to cover a story about Harry’s then-girlfriend Chelsy Davy as her name was on two invoices.

She said she would have asked him to make “calls” on the story and get information from his “contacts”.

David Sherborne read from a joint email written by Mr Behr in December 2007, to Rebecca English, the Daily Mail’s royal editor and Duncan Larcombe, the former royal editor of The Sun, to illustrate the private investigator’s “methods”.

He said “…there we have in wonderful detail all of the flight details, the seat number, flight times, the flight number…” and asked Ms Kerr “He’s blagging flight details, isn’t he?”.

She replied “yes” adding “I don’t know how he got this information, I’ve never seen this.”

He read from another email headlined “Chelsy Airline Search” from Mr Behr to Mr Larcombe which discussed payment arrangements and how he had already billed Ms English.

The Duke of Sussex has left the High Court after giving evidence in his case against Mirror Group Newspapers.

Harry left the Rolls Building in central London at 5.10pm and got into a black Range Rover, ignoring questions from reporters but waving as he got into the car.

Sultana Rasheed, a GP, shouted “thank you Prince Harry, we love you Prince Harry” as the duke left the Rolls Building in a Range Rover.

“I really support Prince Harry, I really support what he stands for,” she said. “I think he’s been badly harassed.”

Giving his take on today’s events at the High Court, Independent Voices deputy editor Samuel Fishwick writes:

Breezing into the building with a smile flickering around the edges of his beard, Prince Harry started the day cheerfully enough, clutching a wad of notes nervously like a GCSE student rolling out of bed for finals.

By the end, he looked as pale and limp as his lime green tie.

As his lawyer, the nasal silk David Sherbourne KC, asked him how he was holding up, the eyes of the world on him, Prince Harry choked and looked hard at his shoelaces. “It’s a lot,” said Harry.

It’s not every day you see a King’s Counsel duking it out with a prince of the realm. At times here, he was made to look more like a boy again than a grown-up father of two – isolated and alone.

With court proceedings having concluded for the day, after taking in lengthy cross-examination of Prince Harry and former Mirror journalist Jane Kerr, here are some of the key moments of the day:

• Prince Harry said he was bringing his cases against newspaper publishers to put a stop to the “absolute intrusion and hate that was coming towards me and my wife and see if there was any way to find a different course of action, rather than relying on the institution’s way”.
• The Duke of Sussex appeared to fight back tears as he was asked about his experience in the witness box describing years of press intrusion, to which he eventually replied: “It’s a lot.”
• The royal claimed that he had found a tracking device on his ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy’s car which he alleged had been placed there by private investigator.
• Asked by MGN’s barrister if he was aware that claimants in the 2015 phone hacking trial against the newspaper publisher had “extensive call data” showing calls to their mobile phones, the duke said he was not aware of that, and insisted the lack of such data in his claim “absolutely” did not suggest he was not also a victim of hacking because journalists could have used “burner phones”.
• The duke claimed hacking phones had been a “risk worth the reward” for journalists and claimed that police did not “know how to deal with” such allegations when they first surfaced.
• Harry was grilled over a 2006 People article about a visit of his to a lap-dancing club, discussing “quotes from the Lithuanian lap dancer who sat on my lap” in a Sunday People article from 2006.

In some highlights of her own testimony under questioning by Prince Harry’s barrister David Sherborne, the Mirror’s former royal editor and assistant news editor Jane Kerr:

• Defended claims she had commissioned third-parties to gather information for news stories “900 times” while working at the Mirror, stating that she “just made the calls” and that “it just didn’t occur to me to ask” how their information was obtained.
• Denied Mr Sherborne’s suggestion that she “knew” journalists were using dates of birth to pass to private investigators to access people’s voicemails.
• Stated that she has “never asked anyone to do anything unlawful” and that she “did not think there was anything wrong with using “people who were well known to the news desk”, as she “had no reason to suspect that they would be doing anything other than carrying out normal journalistic activity”.
• Admitted that she did not want to attend court on Wednesday, after the court was told that she attempted to avoid giving evidence last week but was “ordered” to attend the trial by the judge.
• Was defended against what MGN barrister Andrew Green claimed was an “ambush” of her in the witness box by his opposite number Mr Sherborne – a charge the judge rejected.
• Was asked to return again to court for a further 90 minutes of questioning by Mr Sherborne, after today’s proceedings appeared to run over time.

The court session has concluded for the day, with the judge telling Mirror journalist Jane Kerr not to discuss her evidence with anyone until she returns to court tomorrow.

Prince Harry’s barrister David Sherborne said he would likely question Ms Kerr for a further 90 minutes on Thursday despite her not being due to give evidence again and having an appointment mid-morning.

The judge told the barrister he was “running out of patience” with “timetabling issues”, saying: “We seem to run into a problem every day ... [it’s] ridiculous".

Towards the end of her questioning by Mr Sherborne, Ms Kerr was asked about a number of individuals and agencies who she had commissioned to source information for stories while working at the newspaper.

Those included some sources which the barrister said she had used, but were absent from her witness statement, to which Ms Kerr said she had been presented with a list of names and asked to say which of those she recognised.

In discussion of some sources, Ms Kerr said she had “no reason to ask them” whether what they were doing was lawful, adding that she had “no reason to suspect” they were doing anything other than “carrying out usual journalistic activities”.

Former Daily Mirror journalist Jane Kerr told the court that she has “never asked anyone to do anything unlawful”.

While being cross-examined by Prince Harry’s lawyer David Sherborne about her use of private investigators, the journalist said she had “no reason to believe” details had been obtained unlawfully.

She told the court: “These were people who were well known to the news desk, I did not think there was anything wrong with using them.

Ms Kerr added: “I had no reason to suspect that they would be doing anything other than carrying out normal journalistic activity ... I know I have never asked anyone to do anything unlawful.”

Mr Sherborne questioned how, if Ms Kerr can’t remember what anyone did, how she can say whether it was lawful or unlawful.

In court, David Sherborne, representing the Duke of Sussex, Mirror journalist Jane Kerr used “a large number of private investigators and other third parties whilst [she was] at Mirror Group Newspapers”.

In her written statement, Ms Kerr said she had been told of payment records from AJK Research and Commercial and Legal Services (UK) Limited which refer to her name. She said recalled using the services of the directors of Commercial and Legal Services UK “to ask them to look up an address that was listed on the electoral roll”.

Ms Kerr said that when she was on the newsdesk “in charge of getting reporters out” and there was a “big story breaking” she might have asked them to “look up the names and addresses on the electoral roll”. “My name might appear on the invoices because of this,” Ms Kerr said.

She also said she was familiar with the name of the director of AJK Research, saying he used “to do genealogy/family tree research and he used birth, deaths and marriage registers to do this”.

“I had no reason to believe the practices used by these suppliers were unlawful,” Ms Kerr said.

While Jane Kerr’s byline is on 10 of the 33 articles being examined in court, about which Prince Harry has complained, Ms Kerr in some instances said she could not recall the story or its source – echoing the duke’s own testimony earlier.

In relation to a January 2002 Daily Mirror article entitled “Harry’s cocaine ecstasy and GHB parties”, Ms Kerr said in her witness statement that she was following up a News of the World story and would have called St James’s Palace to get confirmation.

“I cannot recall this story well and I do not know the source of the quotes in this article,” she said, adding it is likely to have come from a contact of her crime correspondent colleague who was jointly bylined.

She added: “I am aware that there was a payment to a confidential source in respect of this article but the source was not one of my contacts.”

The judge has rejected a claim by the Mirror Group’s lawyer that Prince Harry’s barrister was conducting an “ambush” of journalist Jane Kerr, which he claimed was “terribly unfair”.

But Judge Mr Justice Fancourt replied: “It’s not an ambush.”